Marketing: Boldly Going Where No Practice Has Gone Before

By now, every physician has learned about ACOs, Super Groups, IPAs and the like. Virtually every “new” acronym and idea has revealed itself as a retread old one, so at least physicians are getting more comfortable with the new language of healthcare reform. And they are accepting that no one really knows what’s going to happen and how medical practice will ultimately be years from now.
Nearly every physician has asked in the past year or so “What do I do now?” And they have heard responses from every vendor which translates into “Buy my stuff.” Ask an IT person what to do…”Buy my stuff.” Ask an EMR person what to do…”Buy my stuff.” Ask a lawyer….ok enough.

What to do and when to do it in light of feared changes in healthcare is anyone’s guess. There is, however, one remarkably overlooked area of business which physicians have traditionally neglected and which they must focus on now more than ever—marketing.

Do you have a website? Do you know what SEO is and how it works? Do you believe that patients buy what you do and not just who you are? In the internet age when people buy mattresses online, sight unseen, physicians have to begin to learn about marketing.

Though years ago, practicing medicine was clearly a profession, it is now big business. And physicians who thrive will be those who embrace business practices, including marketing. This takes a huge shift in perception since most physicians look at marketing as an expense, not as a good investment.

If you were told that every dollar invested in marketing will yield five dollars in new business would you spend the money? If you were told that buying a stock will result in a five-fold yield over twelve months, would you invest? Physicians have to look as marketing as a good investment rather than simply as a cost. And those that do will likely grow and thrive.


Elephants in the Room

ACOs and other new acronyms have swamped the minds of physicians and healthcarebusiness people alike since the terms were coined. The still new healthcare reform law continues to worry many and challenge others to figure out ways to play the game and win. While we scurry around chasing the regs and the new words and government agencies, while politics keeps moving the ball and shaping the healthcare agenda, the most central issues in healthcare cost/quality debate are not even discussed. It’s as though policy makers and business is saying “Hey, if we keep throwing new regulations at them, maybe they’ll stop asking really tough questions we can’t answer.”

Back in the 80s, the state of Oregon enacted Medicaid reform that took the breath right out of the rest of the country. Remember? The idea that a state would not list ALL medical services to ALL Medicaid patients was considered to be cruel and impolitic at the time. And the national debate about (1) whether healthcare is a right of American citizens, and if so (2) what healthcare services are “in” and which are “out” has grown virtually silent.

Instead, it seems we have entered the area of political intransigence. It appears that getting and staying in political office requires as little change as possible. So, very little seems to be accomplished or even discussed.

So what are the “elephants in the room?” They are the issues of “how much” and “patient accountability.” Though it appears that the issue of whether we Americans are entitled to receive healthcare has been skirted, we are clearly missing any discussion on the issue of how much services. Oregon hit the issue head on, but nationally there appears to be no movement or even discussion of the issue. We don’t know who should get what. We just know we want to reduce the costs (ration).

Virtually every effort to reduce costs so far has involved the use of managed care organizations. The Florida Medicaid program pilot project that began in Broward County in 2006 has produced two clear results—reduced expenditures and huge criticism that managed care has reduced costs solely by reducing access and care itself. Managed care has become the “black hat” that politics won’t pick up. It’s ok for managed care to restrict access and care because it reduces costs, but it is politically impossible to directly address the issue of “how much.” We rely on managed care to do it for us, due to our political inability to tackle the issue, then blame the payers for their (wink wink) bad behavior. If managed care is profiting, it is only because they don’t mind profiting from our unwillingness to take responsibility for the issues they deal with on a daily basis—saying “no.”

The second elephant is the issue of patient accountability. There is none! What is the consequence of patient bad behavior? What consequence is there for refusal to exercise, quit smoking, etc.? None. We pay more. There isn’t a single provision in any federal law that punishes us for making expensive healthcare decisions or that rewards us for making cost saving healthcare decisions.

I liken it to having teenagers. Expectations with no consequences yields a predictable result of no change in behavior. Simple.

These are huge issues to tackle. So many different kinds of people, agendas and ways of seeing the issues. So, we don’t even try. Instead, we “hire” managed care to bear the burden of our failure to address and answer these issues. And we throw complex ideas like metrics and healthcare reform into the market, which only serves to distract us from addressing the root causes of our healthcare challenges.


ACOwatch: Kathleen Sebelius: Keynote Speech From 2nd Annual ACO Summit

6/28/2011: ACOwatch.com 
Remarks as prepared for delivery by Secretary Sebelius on June 27th, 2011, Washington, DC.

“Improving care is clearly the best approach to addressing rising costs – especially compared to recent proposals that would simply cut Medicare and Medicaid, without doing anything to address underlying growth in health care spending.  But it’s also clear that we are not improving fast enough.  So our challenge is to speed it up.”

Read more here: http://acowatch.com/

Odd Little Facts about ACOs


  • The Medicare patients will be invisible to the providers for one year so as to discourage lowering costs improperly. How will this affect the providers’ ability to design cost-lowering programs?
  • ACOs are not closed networks;
  • When ACO beneficiaries go outside the ACO, and healthcare cost savings or excess is passed onto the ACO, even though the ACO had no control over such things. Imagine how seasonal residence plays into this;
  • Demonstration projects show a lot of patient “churn,” further challenging the ability of an ACO to control costs;
  • It looks like the two sided model will put 25% of reimbursement at risk;
  • Even Mayo, Geisinger and Cleveland are saying they won’t participate in ACOs.


IPAs Again

Independent practice associations (“IPAs”) are gaining momentum in response to healthcare reform and market changes responding to healthcare reform.  In an era when consultants are selling one-size-fits-all solutions, physicians have to consider IPAs as a viable option once again, but they have to fine tune their expectation to recent changes.

            In the thunderous noise wrought by talk about accountable care organizations (ACOs), physicians are scrambling to see where they might fit in the future of healthcare.  While we think those changes will be neither as severe or as pervasive as feared, we do see huge opportunities for ANY organization which can (1) reduce healthcare expenditures, and (2) improve quality.  Healthcare businesses of the future will view utilization skeptically.  Hospitals of the future will look like medical practices with beds.  Medical practices of the future will have a stake in the cost and quality of care being delivered and will view utilization skeptically. 

Continue reading